No I was talking about people from the new world aka The Americas plus people from Asia and Africa and Oceania. It's sad that even our history is only plagued with eurocentric views because we were colonies of some European kingdom in the past. We aren't taught about the great leaders, philosophers, poets, scientists, etc but we do learn about Newton, Plato, Shakespeare, etc. I would love to learn about history from all over the world in our schools, of course with more focus on our native lands. I learned more about some of the greats from other regions after school. There are a great many things that happened outside Europe like the arabic-indian numerals, algebra, a lot of research in all sorts of fields, great poetry and philosophy, etc.

The first man to discover how our eyes perceive light was not a European but rather a guy named Ibne-Al-Haytham. A lot of people knew about the world being a sphere before some European did. Ibne-Batuta travelled the world and was actually a great adventurer and role model unlike Columbus. There are so many great writers in Japan like Osamu Dazai and Ryonosuke, Odasaku, etc. Al-Jazari was a great inventor and his Book of knowledge of ingenious mechanical devices is something more people should know about. A lot of weird things are said about Al-Ghazali but he was a great thinker and should be taught about regardless of whether you're Muslim or not. Mansa Musa is regarded as the richest man in history so much so that when he went for Hajj, wherever he stopped, the economy of the place changed entirely. A many things were happening in Africa before the Europeans that we don't learn about like the kingdom of kush. I can go on and on but I am still learning about these people and I am sadly not knowledgeable as I should be. That's why it's sad that it's so eurocentric.

Again, most of the history outside of eurocentric and the topics covered for the non-eurocentric is what survived and had most impact in the world. There isn't much on the history of let's say congo or nepal that would really be relevant to anyone that isn't from there.

I wasn't strictly talking about history class. I was talking about the entire structure of classes that involve history in any way e.g literature, politics, world history, maths, etc. Also those people didn't know how to stay in their own region so most of the world has been a colony at some point

Sorry but I disagree completely. Many of the Europeans we study learned from people all over the world. All of it survived and ad influence in the modern world. It didn't just disappear. It's what you choose to learn. And the most impact thing is a bit ludicrous. It would seem that way if you only learn the eurocentric view which is a result of your education I guess. But the more history you learn, the more you realise there are a lot of holes in the eurocentric view and the more you realize how wrong your statement is.

What do you mean? Europeans didn't originate in Persia/India and even if they did, it wasn't their land. Europeans didn't discover the new world, it was there for a long while with people already there and hell it's said that Africans had reached it way before Columbus. Or was this some sort of joke I didn't understand? Either way, Europeans didn't know when to stop. From China to India to Australia to Indonesia to Malaysia to Afghanistan to most of the middle east and Africa, etc they tried to take control of it all. Today's Europeans are pretty chill but those people back then make me angry just thinking about them.

Why do you get angry about what people did “back then”? Utterly pointless, unhelpful and nonsensical. I’m afraid getting angry about anything in history will do nothing to change it, so you’d be better off simply learning what is good to do and not so good to do and moving forward. Origins of science and maths and literature and art etc etc are all fascinating yet if you’re learning the core subject (maths for example) it’s utterly irrelevant who, what and where “discovered” the equations etc - it matters only that those who are learning it understand it now, in the present, to be able to do something useful with the knowledge. It’s good to keep the knowledge alive of who, what and where, for historical and cultural purposes, but pressing home the ethnicity or culture of the time of the supposed discoverers of anything is unhelpful and time consuming. Furthermore, being through the education system in the UK, I was never taught about the wonderful, magical European discoverers of everything under the sun; I was simply taught the core subject. I really don’t know where people get this idea that Europeans dance about the place thinking they’re the greatest species of anything ever in the whole universe, but it’s not the reality at all and most people are just trying to live their lives the best they can today. 

So in my case I think it depends. Im from Spain but basically education is more regulated by our autonomous community. With that and during high school it was mostly Civil war and Catalan nationalism, thats they only thing the would ask for univ entrance exams for example. Even if you could choose history related subjects like modern history it would just talk about both WW. I believe that european countries focus a lot on that but theres a lack of information in text books at least after that, no talking about cold war, korean war, cultural revolution... which I think are basics to have a bit of understanding about today's problems.

Sure small pieces of knowledge here and there where picked in several places outside of europe (and the more relevant are taught) still the culture and history of those places weren't picked and actually there is no point in doing it outside of the local history for those places. We know you want to talk about the greatness of Islam but sorry to burst your bubble most people don't care and wouldn't have time to be included in their classes without taking other important subject from it.

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

Whether you like the fact or not, history has been full of the colonised and the coloniser. That is just fact. We will probably never know the very first person to ever discover anything, the best we can go with is the first person who’s work was preserved. We usually credit most of the initial scientific and mathematical discoveries and breakthroughs to the civilisations in the Middle East, not Europeans. We also credit the invention of written language to the civilisations of the Middle East (of course here I’m using modern language to describe a region). 

You don’t need to say sorry regarding the importance of  history because I’d wager that as an historian I understand and appreciate the importance of history as well as if not better than most. I’d also like to point out that when you’re arguing about these things, you yourself will also go looking for history that fits your agenda - confirmation bias. Unfortunately, the world isn’t so black and white, and rarely will you get the closest we can to “truth” taking this approach. You’re correct that I haven’t studied maths or science at uni, but if you did and your most pressing concern is worrying about the acknowledgement of Africa, then I’m afraid I feel it’s been a waste of time. An education in science should be based on the important and fundamental discoveries of that science and the teaching of its principles; if you’re taught in those classes about the exact precise moment in history person x, y or z discovered this or that and focus on their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, birthplace or gender, frankly you are wasting time. That belongs in history classes. We have a finite amount of time on this planet and we cannot use that time to focus on every (or I should say, popular) grievances of every person since the dawn of time. If we do, we will go backwards and frankly it feels as though we are these days as identity politics has decreed itself the only worthwhile discussion topic on the planet. 

Edit - I’d also like to point the Chinese have one of if not the longest civilisations on the planet, and were fundamental in the discovery and invention of many, many things we all take for granted today. I never hear the praise for them or their impact on the world, yet nobody seems to worry about teaching about the many and impactful contributions the Chinese gave to the world; why is that? Well, I know why, but that’s not a discussion I’d have on this site. 

Actually I am talking about acknowledging every region for their contributions including China, wchi you seem to agree with me on that. I also want the acknowledgement of Japan or Russia or it's rich literary history and of course going into specifics is near impossible but the world being globally connected isn't a modern phenomenon and my basic point is the acknowledgement that different regions contributed to humanity in different ways and how history and development is connected. They don't go into specifics but they do mention the names, timelines and contributions of the scientists as an intro to the theories named for the scientists that worked on them in science classes. 

My basic gripe is that the history presented in our time has falsely given huge importance to one region only while ignoring the rest of the world. Europe has contributed a lot for the development of mankind but Europe isn't the only one that did. Children need to be taught perspective and a history as close to reality as possible without important omissions. Otherwise we end up with adults who think too highly of their own lands accomplishments and we suffer real world consequences for that because these same adults than justify what might be unjustifiable by disregarding the humanity of everyone else. The stupid IQ debate being linked to races is one example that comes to mind. Another is calling other people barbaric, cave dwellers, etc to justify invading them. 

It also creates bonds of humanity to learn that the development of humanity was a collaborative effort of all humanity instead of one region just doing all the heavy lifting. Hell even in one region, one specific timeframe being the be all and end all for that region is troublesome. Like the weird perception people have about the dark ages. While true that many atrocities occured in Europe during that time, that's not quite the whole story. Not for Europe and certainly not for the world at large. 

My point is we can do a better job at teaching a more balanced viewpoint of history instead of one serving an agenda, though I do agree you can never get rid of bias altogether, nor should you completely do that I think.  

Because former colonies are more than Australia, US and Canada. As I said, most of the world is a former European colony. And the Europeans of those times did some pretty effed up things like the British in India used to hang Hindus wrapped in cow skins and Muslims wrapped in pig skins for defying their rule as an example. It wasn't all bad but if you know about Islam and Hinduism, that's some messed up shit. So I hope that tells you why it would make me angry.